GARSINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BALU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The miscellaneous appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants for enhancement of compensation has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 27/11/2013 passed in claim case No.82 of 2010 by V Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore.

(2.) Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of these appeals lie in narrow compass: Ramveersingh working in the police department (son of appellants No.1 and 2 and father of appellants No.3 to 5) in the midnight of 24/02/2010 while going on his motorcycle and reached near Maa Vihar Colony on A.B.Road, Indore, the offending tractor with registration No.MP09 AB 0401 and trolley bearing registration No.MP09 AB 0403 driven by respondent No.2 negligently and rashly from the opposite side dashed the motorcycle as a result, he suffered serious injuries and died.

(3.) The claimants/appellants have challenged the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the premise that the compensation awarded is meager and on the lower side on various heads. He further submits that the tribunal in paragraph 21 of the impugned award though has found the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,562/- (including 30% future prospects) and after deducting onethird has calculated the dependency at Rs. 1,64,496/- but has further reduced the said amount by the salary of the son of the deceased against the employment provided, on compassionate ground at Rs. 77,364/- per annum and by applying the multiplier of '13' assessed the dependency at Rs. 10,95,732/-. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid deduction of Rs. 77,364/- per annum towards dependency is de hors the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') inasmuch as it talks of 'where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased can maintain a claim' but the dependent or the legal representative's income to be taken into consideration in employment to reduce the income of the deceased from the income so calculated. Hence, the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction by deducting the income of the legal representative of the deceased from the income so calculated. The said finding deserves to be set aside and the claimants be held entitled for the amount so deducted by the tribunal. Accordingly, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.